Can you show me the exact words of the Court saying this????
-------------------------------------------------
They quote with approval the following:
"The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: "Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be 'right reason,' and I think it is law."
"And if this is/was so, then why did they consider the citizenship status of the parents at the time of her birth in this case???"
I don't think they did consider her parents citizenship status. They say she is a citizen regardless of the citizenship of her parents (which we all agree is true).
But they also say, "But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States..."
So they equate her native born citizenship (which I think we all agree is citizenship based on birth in the US) with natural born citizenship. The government thought she had lost native born status, but the Court found the lower court had correctly said she retained NBC.
This was either sloppy writing, or the court considered them to be the same thing.
Obviously, the Supreme Court could reject this reading of mine and rule that 2 citizen parents are required. I just think it is unlikely they would do so, and that courts have just reason for concluding that precedent by the Supreme Court means a native born citizen is also a natural born citizen.
FWIW - my personal opinion of how it SHOULD be is in agreement with yours - I think it OUGHT to mean born of two US parents. I just think the Courts will disagree with me, and thus with you as well.
And my point is that we should focus on winning elections rather than encourage more court cases, UNLESS we can make it a court case the US Courts would HAVE to rule on. And even then, I'd bet the odds would be heavily in favor of Obama winning...
Right -- and a natural born citizen as well. One can be native born [soil] and not natural born [soil and parentage], but whoever is natural born [soil and parentage] is also native born. Young Steinkauler, by Vattel's definition, was both.
I don't think they did consider her parents citizenship status.
Sure they did. They noted that her father had been naturalized before her birth. Therefore she was both a native born citizen by birth on American soil and a natural born citizen because by birth on American soil and of American parentage. Elg was also both.
They didn't equate them. The government tried to deny her native born status, but the Court restored not only her native born status but raised her to an NBC status.